Is this legal

[Cory]

It's not a bumper That is their frame. Bumper rules have absolutely no effect on the frame of the robot.

There is only one possible way it could be deemed illegal-If they start using it to tip robots, or if it is larger than the maximum dimensions.

What that means is that we can stop saying "iit's illegal!" "No, it's legal!" back and forth and leave it for the refs to figure out on the field.

[Conor Ryan]

Originally Posted by Cory

It's not a bumper That is their frame. Bumper rules have absolutely no effect on the frame of the robot.

There is only one possible way it could be deemed illegal-If they start using it to tip robots, or if it is larger than the maximum dimensions.

What that means is that we can stop saying "iit's illegal!" "No, it's legal!" back and forth and leave it for the refs to figure out on the field.

ok i'll give you that. if its used to ram its illegal. if its a bumper, its illegal. all other cases its legal.

[ChrisH]

Originally Posted by cdr1122334455

illegal


i'd say that is illegal for two reasons: one that bumpers must be 2"-8" off the ground. as well as the materials are hard and not allowed. read whats in bold.

Read the posts above. These are not bumpers. A bumper is a device that extends beyond the normal "box" and is designed to lessen the force of impact through cushioning. True bumpers have basically not been seen since 2000 when they were introduced. There may be some robots I've missed that used them but probably not many.

It seems to me that there are two reasons for non-use of this rule provision. First, they are part of your total weight. This is the first year since then that we have had enough weight budget remaining that we could consider them. Second, they must be removable yet may not contain any "hard" material. So there is nothing inside to grab onto and make sure they stay attached. We prefer not to waste good weight carrying around something that will fall off at the first good hit.

If it is part of your frame or even just fits within the "box", it does not have to meet the "hardness" test. These are within the box.

[Covey41]

Having seen all the controversy that wedge shape robots have caused in the past, I would certainly stay away from that design. Even if their purpose is strictly defensive, it is possible for them to accidental flip over a robot, and be DQ'ed. If a Ref see forward motion that he feels caused a robot to flip, he will call for a DQ. Remember all the flips that were part of "Stack Attack".

It is not worth the risk!

[DarMagi]

The robot in question is all legal suppossing the demensions are acceptable for judging. Also note that where the design might not be illegal, it certainly has the ability to aim for a great illegal strategy during the game. I say this will be an interesting robot to look for at a competiton and how well it does. The legality of this design relies soley on the operators now as those who the members who actually implement the strategy. About the stack attack, that could be easily avoidable, in our case we ran a bi-directional design and our whole game was offensive as it didn't matter if we flipped, we ran either way. But thinking of a good way to avoid a malicious wedge this year will be pretty tough, and since ship date was passed, well the wedge may be used illegally at some competitons but is a favored design as it offers alot of protection from robots trying to stop an addition of points. Although, in my hopes I don't think that blocking will be much on the ground this season, alot of good arms with great reach and I think will play a good role when it comes to blocking scoring, they are really affective at block.!!

[Dennis Jenks]

Bob92 (& other critics),

While I am sure you meant no harm and simply wished to gain clarification of the rules, in the future please try to do so without pointing fingers at any specific team (either directly or indirectly).

This type of thread is exactly the reason why many veteran teams no longer post pictures of their robots on this site. Over the last few years numerous teams have been attacked, and basically put on trial, after simply attempting to share the results of their hard work. Please keep in mind that every team puts an enormous amount of time and effort into their design, and when they post it here it is because they are proud of their results and wish to share them with you. This sharing is one of the great things about FIRST, and one you would be hard pressed to find in any other competitive environment.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the innovative approaches and unique designs that teams share here each year. Let’s not stifle that by creating an environment where people are hesitant to post their most creative ideas because they are afraid of the fallout.

By the way 11 – Nice chassis, if you have a good arm to go with that you’ll be a tough team to stop!

[pakrat]

thats a great design, and it should be recognized as a job well done. Its strategic to have wedge shaped edges. driving forward, isn't in the G25 ruling, lifting up is. so, its not illegal to flip robots unless they LIFT UP and flip it. so, nice move 11. I like it

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by pakrat

Its strategic to have wedge shaped edges. driving forward, isn't in the G25 ruling, lifting up is. so, its not illegal to flip robots unless they LIFT UP and flip it. so, nice move 11. I like it

Sorry, but that's just not accurate. Here's what <G25> says:

<G25> Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match. Repeated offenses could result in a team/ROBOT being disqualified from the remainder of the Regional or Championship competition.

Examples of normal game play interaction include:

• Pushing low on another ROBOT.

• Blocking or pushing on a TETRA that is in possession of an opposing ROBOT.

• Establishing ROBOT position to block access to a GOAL by an opposing ROBOT.

• Using an arm or gripper to prevent an opposing ROBOT from placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

Examples of inappropriate robot interaction include:

• Pushing high on a robot and tipping it over.

• Using an arm or gripper to repeatedly strike an opposing ROBOT that is not in the process of placing a TETRA on a GOAL.

• Placing any part of your ROBOT under an opposing ROBOT, and then lifting to flip it over.

• Using an arm and gripper to pull a ROBOT by grabbing electrical cables, hoses, etc. or disabling a ROBOT by tearing out wires or hoses.

• Grasping or attaching to a TETRA that is in the possession of an opposing ROBOT, and using it to pull over the opposing ROBOT.

• Ramming another ROBOT at high speed.

It is therefore illegal to employ a strategy aimed solely at "destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement" of robots; if that strategy takes the form of pushing with a wedge-shaped structure, in any direction, disqualification may result. Even though a "push-and-flip" manoeuvre is not listed in the examples, it can still be considered an illegal strategy, if the referee makes a determination that the aim of the strategy was consistent with one of the banned motives.

Using the wedge as a deterrent would probably be allowed--if no actual flipping (etc.) occurs, it's difficult for the referee to firmly determine the aim of the strategy. If 11 uses their wedge in this manner, I doubt they'll have any issues.

Chasing robots around with a wedge, claiming, "I was only pushing horizontally" will not fly. In all probability, you would be disqualified, mercilessly, because the referee will decide that the strategy employed was illegal, per <G25> (aimed solely at "tipping over", for instance).

A more interesting scenario would take place if a team tried to deliberately upend its own robot, using 11's wedge, for the purpose of getting 11 disqualified. This is itself a disqualifying offence, for the same reasons as above. (Yes, it's not a nice thing to do. That doesn't mean that stupid ideas like this don't get tried, occasionally.) The referee would have to be watching very carefully to figure out what was indeed going on--who pushed who, who's acting passively, who's the aggressor, etc.. Now, I think that as a practical matter, the onus would be placed on 11 to justify the existence of the wedge; it is awfully hard to be certain if a team was trying to flip itself, and absent that proof, the referee might want to take the obvious route, and disqualify 11, whether or not they actually broke a rule. To avoid this situation, the referee must be responsible for being very, very sure of their call--it is better to let it pass, and make no disqualification, than to disqualify the wrong team, because of unclear and fast-paced gameplay.

[amateurrobotguy]

I am going to put my foot down and say that it is definitely illegal. Above it was mentioned that it is ok if used as a deterrent. So, logically, I will attach a 50 inch saw blade to my bot, claim it was a deterrent and not be disqualified? "Oh, that blade...well...its just a DECORATION!?". If I get in a match with a bot that looks like that, I will petition the referee to dq them. Even though it probably was not intentional to make it a wedge that can flip , it can be employed to entangle a robot and will make it impossible to block them without having their robot wedged under your bot. It doesn't get any clearer than that. If a bot tries to block that bot, and its motor wheels get elevated off the ground because it ran up the wedge, then it is a clear violation of <G25>Section 4-The Game(Namely, entanglement). Entanglement is defined as preventing movement. If my robot can't move, it is entangled. Even though the non-wedge bot ran into the other bot, it was because of the wedge that the robot got entangled. BUT in a later satement that appends to the above stated rule, it states that entanglement is also part of normal gameplay. A ref would have to prove that the wedge was intentionally used to entangle another bot. I believe that any ref will say that it was intentionally used to entangle bots. Pushing low on a robot is ok, but pushing under(as this robot will most likely do) is not. It is an excellent defensive idea, but it is not in the spirit of FIRST and shouldn't be allowed to play. My philosophy is if it is questionable then don't do it.

[OneAngryDaisy]

Originally Posted by Dennis Jenks

Bob92 (& other critics),

While I am sure you meant no harm and simply wished to gain clarification of the rules, in the future please try to do so without pointing fingers at any specific team (either directly or indirectly).

This type of thread is exactly the reason why many veteran teams no longer post pictures of their robots on this site. Over the last few years numerous teams have been attacked, and basically put on trial, after simply attempting to share the results of their hard work. Please keep in mind that every team puts an enormous amount of time and effort into their design, and when they post it here it is because they are proud of their results and wish to share them with you. This sharing is one of the great things about FIRST, and one you would be hard pressed to find in any other competitive environment.

I, for one, look forward to seeing the innovative approaches and unique designs that teams share here each year. Let’s not stifle that by creating an environment where people are hesitant to post their most creative ideas because they are afraid of the fallout.

By the way 11 – Nice chassis, if you have a good arm to go with that you’ll be a tough team to stop!

Can anyone say Truck Town in 2003? Theu unveiled an absolutely beautiful robot- with an concept nobody else had thought of, reaching over the bridge to block the entire field.. After revealing their picture way before any regionals, FIRST banned this kind of concept, and 68 was forced to scrap what made their robot elevate from an amazing bot to an absolute beast.


about the wedge- if team 11 is a great capper but does not have much traction, their best method to go would be with a wedge, so teams could not push them around when they are capping. Wedges aren't always malicious, used properly they can be critical strategic elements.